Read below to see what I should be working on instead of creating this post. Oh well, college is for learning! I guess that my essays are the one time that I can be creative during my college experience. Especially when I'm not entirely sure what I'm writing about... Oh well, try to enjoy. :)
In his book, Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv inserts two different definitions of nature as defined by the nature poet Gary Snyder. One of those definitions is that “nature includes the material world and all of its objects and phenomena” (Louv 8), the other definition is “the outdoors” (Louv 8). According to Mr. Snyder’s first definition, everything that is made up of atoms is a part of nature, even if it isn’t found in a place that is untouched by humans. For his second definition, Mr. Snyder differentiates between what is man-made and what could be found in a place untouched by humans.
However, Mr. Louv’s own definition of nature is slightly different. He defines nature as a “natural wilderness: biodiversity, abundance-related loose parts in a backyard or a rugged mountain ridge” (Louv 8). In his definition Mr. Louv is being both more and less stringent than Mr. Snyder in his definition of nature. He is being more stringent in his definition because he is not including man-made items as a part of nature.
In his book, Louv gives the impression that “environment” should be defined as the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded, or where you happen to be in one moment of time. Obviously this means that your environment could change from one minute to the next, especially if you were to enter your house from the outdoors, or vice versa. “Wilderness” however is defined as an area of Earth which is untouched, uncultivated or uninhabited by man. Because humans are constantly trying to expand our control over nature, there are very few places that can still truly be considered wilderness.
In regards as to how each different definition’s interpretation is significant in regards to human-ecosystem interactions, it really depends on how much of the world you consider “nature” to encompass. If you do believe that man-made items are a part of “nature”, then it is very easy to understand that our actions have consequences on our ecosystem, even if they aren’t very immediate. Conversely, if you do not believe that “nature” encompasses items made by humans, then it is very hard to understand how our actions have potentially deadly effects on our ecosystem.
As Louv states, “Though we often see ourselves as separate from nature, humans are also part of that wilderness.” (Louv 9) Whenever we humans use the natural resources that we feel we are entitled to, such as marine life and the forests, we cause disastrous effects on the ecosystem if we do not regulate our usage of each of the many natural resources we use. Not only should we regulate our use of natural resources, we should also find a way to return our waste to the ecosystems in a way that would benefit the ecosystems instead of harming them as we are doing now.
In his book, Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv inserts two different definitions of nature as defined by the nature poet Gary Snyder. One of those definitions is that “nature includes the material world and all of its objects and phenomena” (Louv 8), the other definition is “the outdoors” (Louv 8). According to Mr. Snyder’s first definition, everything that is made up of atoms is a part of nature, even if it isn’t found in a place that is untouched by humans. For his second definition, Mr. Snyder differentiates between what is man-made and what could be found in a place untouched by humans.
However, Mr. Louv’s own definition of nature is slightly different. He defines nature as a “natural wilderness: biodiversity, abundance-related loose parts in a backyard or a rugged mountain ridge” (Louv 8). In his definition Mr. Louv is being both more and less stringent than Mr. Snyder in his definition of nature. He is being more stringent in his definition because he is not including man-made items as a part of nature.
In his book, Louv gives the impression that “environment” should be defined as the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded, or where you happen to be in one moment of time. Obviously this means that your environment could change from one minute to the next, especially if you were to enter your house from the outdoors, or vice versa. “Wilderness” however is defined as an area of Earth which is untouched, uncultivated or uninhabited by man. Because humans are constantly trying to expand our control over nature, there are very few places that can still truly be considered wilderness.
In regards as to how each different definition’s interpretation is significant in regards to human-ecosystem interactions, it really depends on how much of the world you consider “nature” to encompass. If you do believe that man-made items are a part of “nature”, then it is very easy to understand that our actions have consequences on our ecosystem, even if they aren’t very immediate. Conversely, if you do not believe that “nature” encompasses items made by humans, then it is very hard to understand how our actions have potentially deadly effects on our ecosystem.
As Louv states, “Though we often see ourselves as separate from nature, humans are also part of that wilderness.” (Louv 9) Whenever we humans use the natural resources that we feel we are entitled to, such as marine life and the forests, we cause disastrous effects on the ecosystem if we do not regulate our usage of each of the many natural resources we use. Not only should we regulate our use of natural resources, we should also find a way to return our waste to the ecosystems in a way that would benefit the ecosystems instead of harming them as we are doing now.
Blargh. I hate this take home essay stuff. I'm in my NORTH VILLAGE living room listenign to the rain hit the roof. It is VERY unsettling to hear the rain strike the roof with such force, but I definately feel real cosy being up at this hour drinking plain old Lipton tea with milk and sugar talking to Jones and Em.
No comments:
Post a Comment